Sikka Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Gyanendra Singh Chauhan v. Ravi Pratap Singh

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

2. The present belated appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and award dated May 9, 2025 passed by the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in Appeal No.121/2024 (Ravi Pratap Singh v. Sikka Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.).

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a delay of 122 days in filing the instant appeal and the reason for delay has been given that the impugned award was passed on May 9, 2025 and there is a process in the company for filing the appeal, which took reasonable period of time.

4. In view of the above, it appears that the instant appeal has been filed with a delay of 122 days, and the reasons shown for the delay are purely a bureaucratic set-up at the end of the appellant.

5. Before proceeding further in the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the various judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue.

6. This Court has to see the sufficient 'explanation' for condonation of delay and not the 'excuses' for condoning the delay as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh & Others Vs. Union of India and Another; (2023) 10 SCC 531. The relevant paragraphs 31 and 2 RERAD No. 112 of 2025 32 are extracted here-in-below:- "31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an "explanation" and an "excuse". An "explanation" is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an "explanation" from an "excuse". Although people tend to see "explanation" and "excuse" as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real. for something. It helps clarify the cause

32. An "excuse" is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an "excuse" would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication." (emphasis added)

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, had held that the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. It is the duty of the court to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and 3 RERAD No. 112 of 2025 rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Another V. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy(D) Through His Lr; Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019); 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489 has held as under :- "27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants. (emphasis added)

9. In a plethora of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that delay cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice does not mean causing prejudice to the respondents. In the present case, the appellants have failed to establish that they were reasonably diligent in pursuing the matter and, therefore, the valid test for condonation of delay is not satisfied.

10. In view of above, the delay can only be condoned if sufficient ground is shown for condonation of delay. However, the appellant has failed to show any sufficient cause for condonation of such a long delay. He has even failed to disclose as to who was the person on whose shoulder he has put the burden of such a long delay and here the appellant being the Company has proper machinery to deal with court cases, therefore, the grounds shown by the appellant are nothing but seems to be a concocted story, only to get the delay condoned in the matter of claim, therefore, the application for condonation of delay is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

11. The application for condonation of delay is rejected.

12. In view of the above, the instant appeal suffers from delay and laches and consequently, the appeal is dismissed. December 17, 2025 Anupam S/- (Prashant Kumar,J.) ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

2. The present belated appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and award dated May 9, 2025 passed by the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in Appeal No.121/2024 (Ravi Pratap Singh v. Sikka Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.).

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a delay of 122 days in filing the instant appeal and the reason for delay has been given that the impugned award was passed on May 9, 2025 and there is a process in the company for filing the appeal, which took reasonable period of time.

4. In view of the above, it appears that the instant appeal has been filed with a delay of 122 days, and the reasons shown for the delay are purely a bureaucratic set-up at the end of the appellant.

5. Before proceeding further in the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the various judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue.

6. This Court has to see the sufficient 'explanation' for condonation of delay and not the 'excuses' for condoning the delay as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh & Others Vs. Union of India and Another; (2023) 10 SCC 531. The relevant paragraphs 31 and 2 RERAD No. 112 of 2025 32 are extracted here-in-below:- "31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an "explanation" and an "excuse". An "explanation" is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an "explanation" from an "excuse". Although people tend to see "explanation" and "excuse" as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real. for something. It helps clarify the cause

32. An "excuse" is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an "excuse" would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication." (emphasis added)

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, had held that the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. It is the duty of the court to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and 3 RERAD No. 112 of 2025 rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Another V. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy(D) Through His Lr; Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019); 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489 has held as under :- "27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants. (emphasis added)

9. In a plethora of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that delay cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice does not mean causing prejudice to the respondents. In the present case, the appellants have failed to establish that they were reasonably diligent in pursuing the matter and, therefore, the valid test for condonation of delay is not satisfied.

10. In view of above, the delay can only be condoned if sufficient ground is shown for condonation of delay. However, the appellant has failed to show any sufficient cause for condonation of such a long delay. He has even failed to disclose as to who was the person on whose shoulder he has put the burden of such a long delay and here the appellant being the Company has proper machinery to deal with court cases, therefore, the grounds shown by the appellant are nothing but seems to be a concocted story, only to get the delay condoned in the matter of claim, therefore, the application for condonation of delay is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

11. The application for condonation of delay is rejected.

12. In view of the above, the instant appeal suffers from delay and laches and consequently, the appeal is dismissed. December 17, 2025 Anupam S/- (Prashant Kumar,J.) ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench